I agree that intellectual investment can be a problem. I can't kid myself, I am intellectually invested in the idea that there is a God. I comfort myself with the fact that I am far less invested in that idea than many others who argue for the existence of God, but it isn't as though I'm not intellectually invested in the idea at all.
Heck, I'm willing to admit that I like the idea of the existence of God. On top of that, I even like religion, at least I like its high points. I can rant about the low points with the best of them. But I've been deeply interested in science since I was very young, and I still think it is the most useful way to understand the world.
The thing is, I know it isn't the only way to understand the world. I currently study English literature and philosophy, neither of which utilize the scientific method in their goals or their thinking. Although these disciplines can't let me genetically engineer glow-in-the-dark frogs, (which are awesome, and btw I'd like to thank scientists everywhere for making ridiculousness like that actually possible) they can be used to understand the world in effective, interesting, and useful ways.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I refuse to be an empiricist (in the philosophical sense; that is, that only what can be empirically verified actually exists.) I am comfortable with non-empirical heuristics, and I am willing to consider them on their own merits. Yes, philosophy has almost zero impact on the way we empirically view the world. Does that mean it is nothing but word games? I don't think so, although many do. Does the impact of literature on a single person primarily occur in the empirical realm? There are empirical effects; I suppose heart rate could change when reading a good book, and certainly a person who reads a socially conscious novel and then attempts to emulate that sentiment is performing measurable actions. But I would maintain that those are not the most interesting parts of of literature's effect on the world.
I used to think (when I was very young) that God was/should be empirically testable. I grew up, learned things, and realized that God wasn't empirically testable. That bothered me. I also, however, realized that there are a number of things which are, in principle, also not empirically verifiable. Empiricism cannot establish that you are not all figments of my imagination, empiricism cannot establish historical fact, etc. I realize these are weak arguments against empiricism, and that for most intents and purposes, empiricism is capable of providing good evidence of the existence of other people and historical times. I was absolutely committed to the idea of God, and I hid in that limited empirical uncertainty, in order to protect that belief. (Which, I admit, was intellectually irresponsible.)
But the realization that it is impossible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural entity was still an important one. I say this not because I like hiding in that uncertainty, but to point out that there are some things that an empirical methodology simply cannot do. In order to do these things, if we want to do them at all, we use other ways of understanding the world.
Will I admit that it is possible God doesn't exist? Yup. If I'm driven to it, I might even admit that it isn't particularly likely that God exists. If I was an empiricist, that would be enough for me, in order to be intellectually responsible I would give up the idea of God. But I am capable of understanding the world in non-empirical ways, and in fact, that's what I pretty much do with my life right now: assuming I get into graduate school I'll spend most of time studying literature. I hold the usefulness of other ways of understanding the world higher in relation to empiricism than many people I know.
The thing of it is, understanding the limits of empiricism and focusing on less-tangible ways of understanding the world is not intellectually irresponsible. Nor will it ever be the case that someone who prefers other ways of understanding the world, or recognizes their value, will by virtue of that fact alone be irresponsible. I suppose that's the direction I'd like to take this extremely lengthy post.
:P
